From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Aug 14 18:35:28 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA09257 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 18:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA09245 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 18:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA06886; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:34:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:34:56 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Darren Reed cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw vs ipfilter? In-Reply-To: <199608142350.JAA06711@panda.hilink.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Darren Reed wrote: > In some mail from Daniel O'Callaghan, sie said: > @23 pass in on ed0 proto tcp/udp from any to any port = 123 > > to insert a new rule at position 23 for the input list of filters. Yes, I just noticed a reference to this. > [...] > > but I *do* like Poul-Henning's rule numbers in ipfw. Any chance of > > having numbered rules, Darren? > > This reminds me of programming in BASIC, way back, when you needed to > use line numbers for GOTO's, etc, and eventually, you will run into > the same "problem" and need to renumber. I really don't see a win > from this feature. Well, yes, it is a bit like programming in BASIC, which is why I've spread the rule numbers out in my use of them. I guess my rule-generating perl script could use the rules themselves to match my reporting rules, rather than using rule numbers. Danny